BraveNewCheneyWorld:So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.

ox45tallboy:BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.

What paranoid fantasy realm do you live in that "everyone" wants you dead and what they are planning to use against you is a pressing concern?

ox45tallboy:BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.

There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.

Ow! That was my feelings!:ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.

There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.

redmid17:There's a good chance that SYG would have applied to both of them at one point or another during the chase.

That's what I was looking for. Can we consider this to be a datum pointing towards the reality that laws may need to be adjusted to avoid this sort of clusterfark in the future, where the actions of both individuals can be somewhat legally justified, even if the opposing theory of the series of events is absolutely accurate?

In my opinion, the point is that one of the two wound up dead, and the people that feel this was an acceptable outcome have no business in the debate.

When a man can be within the law and still wind up dead, and the actions of the individual doing the shooting are also within the law, then the problem is not the individuals but the law.

Well, that's what they said about fully automatic weapons. Guess how many of those are on the street less than 30 years later? And yet, they're still available for law-abiding citizens that want to jump through the necessary hoops.

dittybopper:I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was pointing out that the Joyce Foundation funds extreme anti-gun advocacy, so any research they fund is bound to be suspect.

I'm just curious here.

The side of MONEY is definitely with the NRA/gun manufacturers. There is big money to be made in keeping guns legal, as can be evidenced by the huge spike in sales recently.

Who makes money if a study says we should reduce civilian gun ownership?

Kind of like the whole climate-change debate - oil and power companies make money if the studies say global warming is nonexistent, but the scientists working for the government are somehow being labeled as the ones who profit by research saying global warming is man-made?

ox45tallboy:Ow! That was my feelings!: There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.

Well, that's what they said about fully automatic weapons. Guess how many of those are on the street less than 30 years later? And yet, they're still available for law-abiding citizens that want to jump through the necessary hoops.

Considering there were 1000s of automatic weapons initially, few of which have 'disappeared' from the street, it's hardly a fair comparison. Most of them are still around. 1000s =/= 10s of millions. It's a metal/plastic box with a spring, get over it.

Earpj:Generation_D:The NRA is already going to oppose you in the next Republican primary, run a gun nut, dump millions into local tv and radio saturation ads, and probably win.

Thats really a big part of the issue. We can't have normal legislation for common sense response to unregulated gun ownership because, any time we suggest it, the NRA is out in force shooting at everything that moves. They're the LA cops of public policy. And we're all grandmas in pickup trucks.

Yup. I live in Texas. Shiat doesn't need to be moving for folks to shoot at it here.The next district over allows guns in the classroom. I can't even read the comments section of the local paper.

You sound like one of the snowbirds who left your liberal utopia to escape the taxes and find a job but want your new home to suffer the same policies that made you leave.

ox45tallboy:Giltric: You just asked me a question....am I allowed to stand my ground and shoot you because you are being agressive?

Get over yourself.

No I didn't. I asked if I would have legal justification for assaulting you for following me and confronting me for no reason while armed with a handgun.

Also, could I have shot you instead, assuming I were armed as well?

If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?

mrshowrules:Citrate1007: Is it logical to look at the .001% of people who use guns inappropriately and paint every gun owner as irresponsible or to look at the 99.999% that do. Obviously I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but you see the point.

Responsible gun owners are not the major problem. So?

So why are all the laws and "policies" written to only "control" the responsible, law abiding gun owner? There is this thing called the 5th Amendment that exempts criminals and lunatics from any licensing, reporting or registration requirements. They can't be required to incriminate themselves.

Jim_Callahan:I don't think the article is saying that nothing can be derived from current data (which is what a lot of you seem to be getting out of it).

It's saying that if we're really concerned about this, then national, fully-funded real studies with controls and shiat by neutral third parties would do a lot more good than the current cobbling-together of a dozen different data sources that we've got. Which is true enough. While there is current data that does say things, it's mostly about crime rates and so on in general and not the actual role of guns, or drugs.

We're probably never going to get what TFA wants, though, because of the DEA and the NRA, who are unreasonable well past the end-point of sanity.

You seem to be saying that Diane, Nancy, Barbara, Chuck, Mike, Rahm, and a gaggle of others are sane reasonable people. Find a way to do tax paid research without involving a politically selected researcher whose money depends on providing the results his owner wants and a lot of us would agree, as long as the stated goal is to only research the negatives expect us to vote against anyone who pushes it. "Turn them in", "Confiscation is on the table". "What's a barrel shroud?" these are the kind of people pushing "Research" and you really expect it to be honest and valid?

Giltric:If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?

Who says they were looking in windows? And who says you were confronting them to hold them for the police instead of demanding their wallet?

While it's great to look out for your neighbor, sentencing someone to death because you thing (or, if you will, have reason to believe) they might be up to no good is not a sign of a civilized society. Laws permitting one to do so are also not a sign of civilized society.

But wait, Sir Tallboy, you say, I'm not sentencing him to death! If he will merely cooperate and tell me his business, then of course I wouldn't shoot him! Only if he resists my demands would I have reason to open fire! He's obviously up to no good if he doesn't tell me who he is and what he's doing! I should be able to demand that of anyone on public property, or on someone else's property even, not just my own!

Laws which allow a citizen to determine another citizen's business at gunpoint are not good laws, and do not make for a good society. Surely even the pro-gun crowd can agree that you have no right to threaten another person who is not on your property and you have not witnessed committing a crime.

Ow! That was my feelings!:Considering there were 1000s of automatic weapons initially, few of which have 'disappeared' from the street, it's hardly a fair comparison. Most of them are still around. 1000s =/= 10s of millions. It's a metal/plastic box with a spring, get over it.

Yes, and converting a semi-auto to full auto is merely a matter of filing down a certain pin that would take someone with experience a matter of 20 minutes or so. That doesn't mean most people will do it, no matter how easy it is. Also, movies and video games are available online to those who know how to install software and use a search engine, yet piracy is a small fraction of total movie viewership and video game play.

If you make new sales unavailable, the old ones will eventually go bad. What percentage of time have you ridden in the past year in a car without an airbag?

See, that's the happy medium. If it's only a bit of metal or plastic and a spring, what's the big deal? If there are hundreds of thousands out there that can still be accessed so easily, then why get worked up about it?

ox45tallboy:dittybopper: I wasn't moving the goalposts, I was pointing out that the Joyce Foundation funds extreme anti-gun advocacy, so any research they fund is bound to be suspect.

I'm just curious here.

The side of MONEY is definitely with the NRA/gun manufacturers. There is big money to be made in keeping guns legal, as can be evidenced by the huge spike in sales recently.

Who makes money if a study says we should reduce civilian gun ownership?

Kind of like the whole climate-change debate - oil and power companies make money if the studies say global warming is nonexistent, but the scientists working for the government are somehow being labeled as the ones who profit by research saying global warming is man-made?

Gun control isn't about profit, it's about control.

But who benefits? Government does. Government, like all organizations, has a kind of life of its own, and like a population of living organisms, it seeks to expand its range as much as possible.

Increased gun control means more government jobs to administer it, which means more tax revenue is necessary. Take a look at many of the gun control programs that have expanded government over the years: The 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1968 Gun Control Act. The 1999 National Instant Check System. The now-defunct 2000 NY CoBIS law. Gun registration in all areas.

All resulted in an increase in the size of government to implement and administer those laws.

ox45tallboy:If you make new sales unavailable, the old ones will eventually go bad. What percentage of time have you ridden in the past year in a car without an airbag?

When was the last time you saw someone riding in an 80 year old car outside of a parade? I see people shooting guns that old, including semiautomatics, all the time.

Hell, back in the 1980's, I fired a revolver that was manufactured during the Civil War. Not a reproduction, but an actual Remington 1858 New Army that was manufactured in the early 1860's.

Quality guns last much, much longer than even the most well-built and engineered car. That's because they are relatively simple devices with fewer parts to break, and fewer maintenance requirements. A quality gun is one of the few machines you can buy with the full expectation that it will outlast the lifetime of the buyer.

ox45tallboy:Giltric: If you see someone walking around your neighbors house looking in windows and you follow them to the other side of the house can the person looking in your neighbors windows shoot you as a form of SYG?

Who says they were looking in windows? And who says you were confronting them to hold them for the police instead of demanding their wallet?

While it's great to look out for your neighbor, sentencing someone to death because you thing (or, if you will, have reason to believe) they might be up to no good is not a sign of a civilized society. Laws permitting one to do so are also not a sign of civilized society.

But wait, Sir Tallboy, you say, I'm not sentencing him to death! If he will merely cooperate and tell me his business, Once he swings at me and assaults me then of course I wouldn't shoot him! Only if he resists my demands would I have reason to open fire! He's obviously up to no good if he doesn't tell me who he is and what he's doing! I should be able to demand that of anyone on public property, or on someone else's property even, not just my own!

Laws which allow a citizen to determine another citizen's business at gunpoint are not good laws, and do not make for a good society. Surely even the pro-gun crowd can agree that you have no right to threaten another person who is not on your property and you have not witnessed committing a crime.

This is why we need this research.

Do you have proof that Zimmerman pulled his gun and questioned Trayvon?

There seems to be proof that Zimmerman was assaulted and Trayvon was on top of him.

If Zimmerman had his firearm out why not just shoot him and be done with it? Why go through the rigamarole of letting Trayvon kick his ass for a bit before shooting Trayvon?

justtray:Ow! That was my feelings!: ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: So what? The fact is that some people do save their own lives with guns. Are you arguing that because the number isn't high enough, we should condemn all would be defensive gun users to death?

I am sure that in the past, some people have saved their own lives with fully automatic weapons, or with high explosives.

And some people have lived through an accident because they weren't wearing their seatbelt. Sounds like a great reason to not make parents buckle their kids up.

The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

*In regards to clip v. magazine, most high-power computer users recognized they lost the battle against the misuse of the word "hacker" long ago.

There are 10s of millions of 30 round mags already out there. Trying to ban them now is pointless.

Too big to ban.

Not just that, but too expensive.

Let's say there are 50 million 30 round AR-15 mags in circulation. They seem to retail around $25 a pop, if you can find them.

Any effective ban *MUST* include confiscation, or it's essentially pointless. It's also a given that the government must pay you fair compensation if they do enact an effective ban. The cost would be $1.25 billion. And that is just 30 round AR-15 magazines. That's not including AK magazines, or 20 round AR mags, or magazines for other guns that aren't STANAG compliant.

Actually, Martin *DID* turn out to be a threat: He started beating the snot out of Zimmerman. Zimmerman didn't shoot until he had already sustained some injury. The eyewitnesses corroborate that Martin was on top of Zimmerman immediately before the shooting. Only Zimmerman and Martin truly know what happened in the few seconds before Martin was shot, but so far there is zero credible evidence that contradicts any significant part of Zimmerman's story.

Other than the complete lack of signs of attack on Martin's body. No busted knuckles. No scrapes. No defensive wounds on Zimmerman.

But still, imagine that, being stalked followed for 7+ minutes then accosted by some armed guy spewing racial slurs questioning him about where he was going in his parent's neighborhood led a teenager, who are paragons of clear thinking, to fight back.

This trial is going to end with nobody being happy.

Everything you said is false.

I'm curious as to how these facts change your position on this case.

They won't change his position.

It's interesting that all the initial reporting favored the idea that Martin was a 12 year old kid killed by a virulently racist white guy who was 100 lbs heavier and who was taller, and when the actual truth started coming out, it didn't change most people's minds.

Based upon the original reporting, I was thinking "death by mall cop", but as all the details started to come to light, including intentional lies and misrepresentations by the Martin family, I rapidly changed my mind.

Now, I think it was largely a case of testosterone poisoning on the part of Martin. He was young, thought he was tough, and he wasn't going to let some asshole intimidate him.

ox45tallboy:The point is that scientific study is needed to determine the facts on which we can make reasonable, rational laws about gun ownership. If your possession of a 10-round magazine* is every bit as likely to save your life as a 30-round one, then why do you want to make 30-round magazines available to everyone on the street to be used against you?

Anyone who plans on using a 30 round magazine on me is a murderer. There is no reason to believe that someone who intends to commit the worst crime there is, will not also commit lesser crimes such as weapon possession, or jaywalking in the process.

Besides, the point is irrelevant in the first place. The 2nd amendment is first and foremost intended to provide a means for battle. This is an infringement on that idea. Go ahead and try your restrictions, but you must do it legally by following the constitutional amendment process as dictated by law, since laws do not trump amendments.

Interesting theory. One could say the same thing about practically any government program.

But the whole point of government is to do whatever the hell the people want it to do. The only times government falls are when it isn't doing what the people want it to do.

Right now, a majority of people do not want to live in a society with a bunch of armed individuals running around thinking they are "protecting" themselves and everyone else, as this leads to increased availability of firearms to those who would use them for illicit purposes. Or, if you will, more good guys with guns necessitates more guns, which will automatically lead to more bad guys with guns.

I could also say that having a gun isn't about being in a militia, or personal protection, or keeping the government in check, it's about control. Control over anyone who doesn't agree with you, as intimidation is clearly present. Control over one's own personal feelings of inadequacy, as is evident by those who you know who so fetishize guns that they wear their guns in their own home. Control over their own fears, even.

Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 2nd Amendment right?

And do the people whose lives would be saved get a vote? Is there vote any more or less important than yours?

dittybopper:When was the last time you saw someone riding in an 80 year old car outside of a parade? I see people shooting guns that old, including semiautomatics, all the time.

Hell, back in the 1980's, I fired a revolver that was manufactured during the Civil War. Not a reproduction, but an actual Remington 1858 New Army that was manufactured in the early 1860's.

Quality guns last much, much longer than even the most well-built and engineered car. That's because they are relatively simple devices with fewer parts to break, and fewer maintenance requirements. A quality gun is one of the few machines you can buy with the full expectation that it will outlast the lifetime of the buyer.

I notice you said "gun" and not "magazine", which is what my comment was about. Could it be because even those old guns have to have new replacement magazines after so much use?

And, once again, if there are so many out there, then why not ban the sale of new high-capacity magazines? I hear people argue all of the time that there are so many it won't make a difference. Then go buy one of those, and help insure it stays in your hands and not a bad guy's!

ox45tallboy:Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

ox45tallboy:Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 2nd Amendment right?

I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.

Giltric:Do you have proof that Zimmerman pulled his gun and questioned Trayvon?

No, I have proof that Zimmerman took his gun to confront him, and had no business confronting him in the first place, and had been told specifically by 911 not to do so.

I've yet to see any scenario in which Martin acted outside the law. I've seen several scenarios in which Zimmerman acted within the law as well.

Whenever two people both act within the law, and one pulls a gun and deliberately shoots the other, the problem is the law. How in the hell do we have laws which permit private citizens to shoot one another, when the other citizen is acting within the law as well?

It would include confiscation - from those who sell them illegally, or use their weapons illegally. Just like with fully automatic weapons, the decreased supply makes them more likely to be held by private, law-abiding citizens and not by criminals. Private, law-abiding citizens may even be tempted to go to the black market for these things, which will take them off the black market and out of the hands of criminals.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Besides, the point is irrelevant in the first place. The 2nd amendment is first and foremost intended to provide a means for battle. This is an infringement on that idea. Go ahead and try your restrictions, but you must do it legally by following the constitutional amendment process as dictated by law, since laws do not trump amendments.

I am all in favor of basically unlimited private ownership of muzzle-loading muskets, which are the definition of "arms" when the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.

Giltric:I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.

The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed. It keeps moving it farther and farther one direction, so that rather than have every home with a muzzle-loading musket above the fireplace, we have nutbags with dozens of rifles and handguns praying for someone to give them an excuse to use them. We have individuals with serious mental issues that really and truly desire to take another human life legally, and even put themselves into harm's way purposefully in order to have that opportunity (I am NOT talking about Zimmerman right here, but about other people). We have those who stockpile firearms specifically in order to use them against law enforcement. We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.

Any person who believes the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear weapons of war designed to kill massive numbers of people in a matter of seconds, weapons not even conceived of in the day in which the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, is sadly delusional.

Technology, not the intent of the Founders, pushed the definition of "arms" to where it was now. People that want to put reasonable limits on personal firearm usage do not believe themselves to be limiting the 2nd Amendment, but to be merely putting that line somewhat closer to where it was when it was originally drawn.

ox45tallboy:Giltric: I wouldn't because in a couple years you would be making a factless emotional plea for people with 6 round magazines to give them up for a 3 round magazine limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_pla ye r Christy starts shooting at around the 4:30 mark. she first uses 2 15 round mags then 3 10 round mags then 5 6 round mags and they time it to see the difference reloading makes. 4 seconds is how much longer it takes to shoot 30 rounds from 5 6 round magazines compared to 2 15 round mags.. At around 10:30 they have someone start to run at her when she switches magazines to see if he can stop her. It only takes 1 second for someone with very little knowledge/training to change a magazine and start shooting again.

The problem is that technology has moved the line of the 2nd Amendment far beyond where it was when the Bill of Rights was signed. It keeps moving it farther and farther one direction, so that rather than have every home with a muzzle-loading musket above the fireplace, we have nutbags with dozens of rifles and handguns praying for someone to give them an excuse to use them. We have individuals with serious mental issues that really and truly desire to take another human life legally, and even put themselves into harm's way purposefully in order to have that opportunity (I am NOT talking about Zimmerman right here, but about other people). We have those who stockpile firearms specifically in order to use them against law enforcement. We have criminals who regularly use their guns against law-abiding people, as well as each other, with law-abiding people getting caught in the crossfire.

Any person who believes the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to keep and bear weapons of war designed to kill massive numbers of people in a matter of seconds, weapons not even conceived of in the day in which the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, is sadly delusional.

Technology, not the intent of the Founders, pushed the de ...

The 1st moves with technology, so do other amendments. Don't give them any excuses to limit our protection against unlawful searches and seizures of our cell phones and computers. What kind of farking boot licking nitwit are you anyway? Ooooh technology derp derka hurr.

You seem to be getting rather desperate in your attempt to force people to stop liking things that you don't like.

ox45tallboy:BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.

Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question. In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.

You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

Your turn.

In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false. The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.

from wiki-The Cookson, a lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on the world stage beginning in the 17th century. The revolutionary mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally-mounted rotating drum. Loading was accomplished by lowering a lever which was mounted on the left side of the rifle. This caused the chambers to line up with two magazines contained within the buttstock and allowed one .55 caliber lead ball and a 60-grain powder charge to fall into their respective chambers. When the lever was returned to its original position, the ball dropped into the chamber, and the powder charge lined up behind it. At the same time, the hammer was cocked, the pan was primed, and the frizzen was lowered. After firing the rifle, the process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading. This feature would later become widespread, but for a time, these repeaters represented the pinnacle in firearms development.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:ox45tallboy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: ox45tallboy: Here's an interesting question: If the studies showed that limiting everyone to 6-round magazines (and/or clips) beers per year would prevent, say, 20% of gun homicides alcohol related death, how would you feel about that? Would you say that saving those lives would be worth the interference with your 21st Amendment right?

Let's hear you answer this question.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had changed the question. If you think it is fair in debate to change the question to something completely different, and demand the other person answer that question, but still refuse to answer the original question, then I'm sorry for you.

Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question. In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.

You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

My answer is based on my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, in which "arms" were muzzle-loading muskets. Technology has creeped the 2nd Amendment way too far one way.

I'm in favor of private ownership of firearms by those who can show they are not a criminal and can possess and use one responsibly. So in answer to my own question, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable limitations to the 2nd Amendment, including the banning of fully automatic weapons, and, depending on what real, scientific research shows, the banning of new sales of high-capacity magazines.

Your turn.

In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false. The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.

from wiki-The Cookson, a lever-action breech-loading repeater, is one of many similar designs to make an appearance on ...

Except for the fact that before the advent of the industrial age and the ability to mass manufacture parts for weapons, the Cookson Rifle was a rarity which took a labor intensive process to manufacture. Looking at a historical example, it wasn't the innovation or ability to even lay down heavy volumes of fire that made the Henry Rifle the preferred weapon of the North in later years of the Civil War, it was the ability of the North to mass manufacture parts and bullets to supply their troops with.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Are you actually arguing that the founding fathers didn't have enough historical examples to realize that rates of, and quality of manufacturing increased as time moved on?

Can we please stop pretending these people were only slightly more knowledgeable than cavemen?

You're ignoring the point I made completely. Weapons like the Cookson Rifle, Nock Gun, and other "volly" type weapons were historical rarities in their day. Maybe a handful existed at any given time because of the sheer dificulty of producing them one by one with no standardization or mechanization that the industrial revolution brought.

It's not "pretending" these people were idiots. It's pointing out they were realists of their day. The constitution was written before the idea of mass production of even rifled barrels took place. Armies still lined up in nice, orderly rows to be shot down by weapons that were - on average, accurate to less than 100 meters, and the idea of cowardace still meant something to the colonial powers that controlled the US.

Arguing that the Founding Fathers took the Cookson Rifle, a rather rare and complex design for the time, into consideration when they wrote the amendment the way they did, without even mentioning it in their writings at all is a stretch at best. Especially since it was common, at the time, for Militas to keep what in their day were "weapons of mass destruction", artillery cannons, in private hands.

Giltric:The 1st moves with technology, so do other amendments. Don't give them any excuses to limit our protection against unlawful searches and seizures of our cell phones and computers. What kind of farking boot licking nitwit are you anyway? Ooooh technology derp derka hurr.

You seem to be getting rather desperate in your attempt to force people to stop liking things that you don't like.

Nice move with the "boot lickers" phrase.

And it's a good point; "speech" when it was written into the 1st did not include massive distribution to millions of people the way it does now. One's "papers" did not include one's computer files.

Because of that, you have to look at what the Founders' intent was, not just when it was written, but also how it was understood by those who voted to pass it. As far as "speech" goes in the first, I think most people believe the definition to mean "the ability to impart ideas, even unpopular and offensive ideas, to whomever cares to listen." So what does the word "arms" mean in the 2nd?

IMHO, it means, "armament necessary to defend oneself and one's home, as well as the armament necessary to defend one's country in a time of need."

However, even if we do eventually agree on that (or something similar, or even something different), then we're stuck looking at what exactly that "armament necessary for X" consists of. Does one need a fully automatic AK-47 to defend one's person and one's home, or might a lever-action Winchester shotgun suffice? Do you need to walk around with a S&W .357 strapped to your hip in order to be ready to defend your country, or is leaving it at home perhaps acceptable?

Perhaps the founders had a reason for being so vague, or phrasing things in such a way that they could be interpreted in different ways. Perhaps they did not believe the wording to be vague at all.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:Yeah, I figured you'd dodge the question. In fact, that's the only option for someone taking your position in this debate.

This from someone who answered the question I posed by asking a different one; I answered the question I originally posed, and you say I am "dodging the question"? Sir, your courtesy and debate skills are sorely lacking.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:You can't say you'd be a prohibitionist, because the public doesn't remotely support prohibition of alcohol, and people will realize your position isn't reasonable, or you'll be shown to be inconsistent in your concern for life.

You can't compare my opinions on two different subjects and call me inconsistent when the subjects are different. Hence the phrase, "apples and oranges". My affinity for and consumption of alcohol is simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And, very Karl Rove-like, you accuse me of dodging the question when I won't talk about what you attempted to change the subject to, all the while you have refused to answer the question yourself!

BraveNewCheneyWorld:In fact, the notion that there were no repeating arms at that time is completely false. The founding fathers were well aware of them, as the technology was about a century old by that time.

If you had followed the wiki links, you would have found even more ammunition (*cough*) for what you believe your point to be:

Another John Cookson, who was also a gunmaker, is known to have worked in America. He is recorded in Boston, Mass. between 1701 and 1762. In 1756 he advertised repeating firearms firing nine shots in the local paper, the Boston Gazette. It is probable that he was related to the John Cookson who worked in London.

I can easily counter this by looking at the sheer volume of technological innovations for which no current law exists, or laws are having to be interpreted in broad terms in order to address. Even in very modern times (as in, the past few decades), look at the sheer number of technological innovations relative to firearms that are clearly outside the bounds of the intent of the law, although within the letter. For example, look at the Slide Fire bump stock, which allows someone to shoot an AR-15 in continuous fire mode by using the recoil to bump the trigger back and forth. Yet fully automatic weapons were banned only two decades before devices like this were commercially available! And the principle of bump fire goes back far before the ban was even considered!

The point is that you can't point to the fact that when the Bill of Rights was approved, there were weapons in uncommon use with a sort of loading mechanism that allowed several shots to be fired before reloading, and say therefore the Founders must have intended for semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines to be available to all citizens to carry around with them everywhere they went. That's just silly.